I stand with Senator Kerry and am frustrated with the House resolution that passed.

[beachmom]

I didn't know this happened:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003148226

The resolution (H Res 560) was approved 405-1 with two Democrats abstaining.

As the House voted, the Iranian government of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to suppress demonstrations against the June 12 vote that have dominated the country for six days.

“We cannot stand silent in the face of this assault on human freedom and dignity,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard L. Berman , D-Calif., said.

Added to the House agenda at the last minute, the resolution expresses “support for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom . . . condem of ongoing violence against demonstrators by the government of Iran...and affir of the universality of individual rights” are the same in both resolutions.”

While “deeply troubled” by reports of violence against protestors, Obama has said he is taking a “wait and see approach.”

Berman’s Senate counterpart, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. John Kerry , D-Mass., cautioned, “with Iran, think before you speak” in a New York Times op-ed June 17.

Republicans blasted that caution Friday.

“The president of the United States has been silent and confused,” said Lincoln Diaz-Balahrt, R-Fla. “The Congress of the United States clearly stands with the Iranian people and they will prevail.”

Iran experts and Iranian-American lobbying groups have warned that even the perception of interference could undermine opposition protestors.

“What the Congress is trying to do by coming down squarely on one side in the ongoing election dispute runs the risk of making the United States part of the story in Iran — which is exactly what Ahmadinejad was hoping for,” Patrick Disney, legislative director of the National Iranian American Council said late Thursday night. “It would play right into the hardliners’ hand, letting them point the finger at a supposed external threat rather than their own mismanagement of the country’s affairs.”

It seems House Democrats are as childish as neocons. They get this cathartic vote, and now the Mullahs have ammunition to use to crush the protesters. I hope this dies in the Senate. Of course, now we have the House on record as being against Pres. Obama's approach. Plus supposedly Clinton and Biden are in open rebellion against Obama. This is ridiculous. Why can't Democrats stick together for anything??? No discipline with respect to Iran, and certainly no party discipline.

[Inuca]

1. IDIOTS!!!!!!

And I do not say that lightly...

What do you base the comment about Clinton and Biden on? Do you have a link?

[beachmom]

3. Here is an AP report plus denial from WH:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ibVJZAoZP9hKAGa5Fc9iOIbAElsw

The debate has agitated the Obama administration. The New York Times reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had hoped Obama would lend more vocal support to the demonstrators.

And Vice President Joe Biden privately believes Obama's remarks on Mousavi were a "mistake," say sources familiar with Biden's position on the matter.

Denial:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gAQGXNumkW5IZPXyEC-7jdJmsaTg

Actually, with more details here, I think Biden is right (Kerry doesn't agree with Obama on that one either). But the Clinton stance is more troubling -- and I don't necessarily buy either denial.

[Inuca]

6. Thanks for the links

The two issues (insensitive grandstanding vs. "Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are the same") are different. And I 100% agree with what JK (and supposedly Biden) was saying. Mousavi is NOT the same. My guess as to why Obama said what he said (and I do not think he should have said it, or at least should have worded it differently) is 1. to emphasize that we do not have a dog in that fight, and thus try to prevent the very same kind of accusations made recently; and (maybe) 2. to make te point that Mousavi is no flaming western-style liberal, which he most definitely is not. It goes back once again to understanding (or at least being aware how little you understand) other cultures and traditions and not forcing everything through a american/western prism.

And a side note about Mousavi: I read comaprisons being made to almost any movement leader that ever was, rom Walesa to Havel to Ghandi, etc. In my view, the one that he most reminds me off is Gorbachev, who never meant (as far as I know at least) to destroy the soviet comunist system, just to make it better, more democratic and more transparent. To reform it from within in othre words, and NOT to sound its death bell. A tragic figure in many ways, I think, but I have always admored and respected him.

[karynnj]

12. The interesting thing here is that Obama's own position

seems to be more like that of Kerry and Biden. I think Obama did misspeak in minimizing the differences - and I think Kerry's conjecture on what he really meant - that on the key issue of being able to have (non-weapon) nuclear power - they are similar is likely true. Here, it might be either misspeaking or Obama is not as informed as Biden and Kerry on the domestic differences, though many erred further in the opposite direction making Mousavi far more democratic or pro American than he is.

If the NYT is correct and HRC argued for something closer to the McCain or Lieberman response, I wonder what impact there will be in the future on Obama if the House and Senate resolutions are used to bash Obama and claim that even his party disagrees with his stance. This was a brave stand for Obama to take - and the correct one for Iran, but even in Kerry's op-ed, he makes clear that the domestic political path of least resistance was to grandstand like McCain and Lieberman.

What seems clear is Obama's Cario speech was a major turn in our policy. That policy was our policy for at least 5 decades, no matter which party was in. There are likely many on either side of the aisle that supported what we did - at least some of that time. They will not concede the issue without a fight. I hope that Obama has the strength of his convictions to not pander and continue to walk the line he has. This uncertainty does mean it will be harder to engage Iran, at least for now.

[beachmom]

16. Yes, I agree. 84% of Iranians support the nuclear program

At least a civilian one, out of national pride. So, there would be little difference between the two candidates on this issue. I have read that the Mullahs prefer Ahmadinejad because he would be a tougher negotiator.

[JI7]

19. Obama is a good politician

i kind of wonder whether Obama's comments were meant to show the Iranian people that Mousavi is not going to be different on that area which they do support. and so the hardliners can't use that against him.

[Luftmensch067]

2. It does seem they are as bad as the GOP in some ways

Either they really don't have the intelligence and historical knowledge to know how stupid this is, or they are simply grandstanding. Both possibilities prove them unfit to make decisions like this. I'm with you, Beachmom, I hope this dies in the Senate!

[beachmom]

4. I think that the House Democrats got scared and caved to GOP rhetoric.

Frankly, I have never been all that impressed with the House. I prefer the more deliberative Senate.

[Luftmensch067]

5. Plus they're just way more glam in the Senate

Hee, hee!

I always pick the high-budget soap... :-)

[ObamaKerryDem]

9. I concur. Plus, the Senate's generally more interesting.

IMHO, anyway. :)

But seriously, it's rather disheartening that this passed...with those kind of numbers, especially. :( I hope it either dies or gets seriously challenged in the Senate. I just think it runs the risk of opening the door too widely to the neocons who obviously want a path leading to war with Iran. Wayy too much like what happened in the beginning with Iraq..


I, too, stand with Senator Kerry on this issue!

[karynnj]

13. McCain and Lieberman's resolution passed on a voice vote

- which was likely agreed to rather than make Democrats have an impossible vote on the record. (PS I thought Lieberman was suppose to behave himself.)

[karynnj]

7. I agree with you - on everything you said

Do House resolutions even go to the Senate? I haven't seen what Biden and Clinton have said, but they really both owe Obama loyalty.

[wisteria]

8. This is not good!

Frankly, I am with our President, Senator Kerry, and you regarding this situation. Everyone else appears to be childish and foolish in their words and actions. I can't believe Clinton is for aggressive action! This is not the kind of situation that you involve the US in and pursue with emotion and an unclear head.

[ProSense]

10. This makes me sick

Ugh!

[TayTay]

11. Sen. Kerry is exactly right

both for Iran and it's people who wish to be the arbiters of their own fate and for the sake of denying the neocons an avenue to claim that the conflict in Iraq indirectly led to this uprising in Iran.

Sorry I have been largely absent the last few weeks. Nothing huge going on, just a lot of stuff I had to catch up on at home. (Mostly good, but I didn't realize I had such a backlog of things to attend to here. )

[wisteria]

14. I am glad you decided to check in here. n/t

[beachmom]

15. Nice to see you here weighing in. I think we have a total Kerry/Obama was right moment here:

From Andrew Sullivan's heartbreaking live blog of Iran today:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/liveblogging-day-8.html

12.53 pm. The state media are putting words into Obama's mouth:

This morning a friend of NIAC who gets Iranian Satellite TV here said that state-run media showed President Obama speaking about Iran this morning. However, instead of translating what he actually said, the translator reportedly quoted Obama as saying he “supports the protesters against the government and they should keep protesting." Assuming this report is correct, it shows the Iranian government is eager to portray Obama as a partisan supporting the demonstrators.

So the Khamenei regime wants the same posture from the Obama as Krauthammer and Wolfowitz. They just don't know what they're talking about, do they?

I recommend everyone read through the live blog. The government thugs are now killing women. Some of the videos Andrew put up cannot be viewed because You Tube removed them. They have a strict policy about now allowing violence on their site. That alone gives one the idea of what those videos showed.

[beachmom]

17. Statement from the President just a while ago:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-President-on-Iran/

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

Beautiful and appropriate.

[MH1]

27. JK hit the mark exactly, as usual

I was very happy to see what he wrote.

It's good to see you here Tay. I've been too absent also.

[JI7]

18. i am so disgusted and angry with this, are Republicans just stupid or do they want a mess in Iran ?

or probably both in order to blame Obama .

seeing John "bomb iran" and the other idiots like Pence, Chambliss etc makes me sick.

never mind that every iranian who supports the protestors are saying that Obama is taking the right approach the above mentioned fools know better.

fucking idiots, all they know is tough talk while sitting safely at home and screaming about war and attacking others.

OBama's approach has made it tough for the hardliners to use the evil america to rally people. so they turned to internal matters and saw who was really to blame for their problems.

[karynnj]

20. The Republicans are really exploiting the death of Neda

Senator McCain graphically told her story on the floor of the Senate - http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77539&hors=s#

He says there is a debate on how much the US should speak out. He says they are fighting for the freedom and democracy we all enjoy. (He then speaks on healthcare. He is saying reconciliation is "not the normal practice. I quess he forgets that the Bush tax cut must have gone through that because it passed with less than 60 votes and needed 1/2)

[beachmom]

21. And what does Senator McCain suggest we do? Roll the tanks in?

Because other than what Obama said (to speak out against violence and for justice), the U.S. is not going to intervene in these events. We are not Batman and Robin who will come to everyone's rescue. I certainly am in favor of some diplomacy, but the truth is I doubt the regime would listen to outside forces when they are frankly fighting for their own survival.

Neda died for the cause, and it is her image and life taken away which is so much more powerful than some stupid grandstanding politician bloviating away in the most exclusive talking club in the world.

Now, politically, maybe the Republicans might "win", but I really don't care, because I have watched this unfold as it happens and know the truth of our limitations .... and the strength of the Iranian people to control their own destiny.

[karynnj]

24. He had no real solution

The fact is that as you say it is an Iranian cause led by Iranians. It also is not lost on anyone that it was the Democrats who even thought it was worthwhile to speak to any Iranians. (Your catch yesterday is a clear cut example of them thinking it "traitorous" to even speak to someone less radical Islamic than Mousavi.) They spent the entire campaign speaking against Obama engaging with Iran.

The fact is though - as we saw when Bush was President - the President determines foreign policy. Obama is very popular and it is three plus years from an election. It is also true that the saner Republicans realize that he is right. Not to mention, the entire middle east is watching and I assume this will impress them - as it echoes comments such as saying (of Pakistan) that it is ultimately their war. For a region where colonial powers dictating policy is still a reason for hate, this has to be a good turn.

As you said it's about the "strength of the Iranian people to control their own destiny."

[beachmom]

23. New poll shows McCain is not winning this argument:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/22/public-opinion-and-iran/

Just 35% believe Obama has not been aggressive enough in his support; 43% believe the level of support has been “about right” and 9% (including 15% of Republicans) think he has been “too aggressive. This is good news. It means that there is no political gain with the public by being more “forceful,” which should make the administration less susceptible to pressure to take a “tougher” line that most of its members seem to understand would be a mistake.

[karynnj]

25. Great - it is good that this pandering failed

[ObamaKerryDem]

35. It failed in the last election, it's failing now.

Glad to hear it.


As others have already said on this thread, I continue to stand with Senator Kerry on this issue and I think President Obama did really well in articulating something very similar during the press conference today.


You know, Republicans/neocons often go on about "keeping us safe" and "feeling safe" and all that, but let me tell you, I feel MUCH safer with President Obama in the White House and folks like Senator Kerry in the majority in the legislative branch than during the last eight years. Imagine if they were still in power? I think we'd likely be getting ready to go to war with Iran right now. Scary stuff...:scared:


Glad the adults are in charge.

[Luftmensch067]

36. Totally agree with you!!! n/t

[JI7]

28. i have never felt hatred for McCain as much as i do right now

including when he was attacking Kerry in such personal ways.

exploiting this in order to use against Obama because he beat him. and yeah, it IS about politics rather than Mccain caring about the Iranian people.

it was Obama who cared about them which is why he never did osmething so cruel as sing about bombing a nation.

[beachmom]

22. Some Americans can't accept the fact that the events in Iran are not about us.

I CONTINUE to stand with John Kerry, who said so eloquently, that this is not an American moment. This is an Iranian moment.

But for right wingers and weak kneed Democrats, only the U.S. matters, and the fact that other people in the world can do amazing things WITHOUT US is simply a concept they cannot understand.


Edit: Thank you Babylon Sister for illustrating once again that the Obama/Kerry approach is correct:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8489057

‘Ordinary Tehrani’ Praises Obama’s Response to the Uprising
By Spencer Ackerman 6/22/09 4:46 PM

The National Iranian American Council publishes.” this email, describing it as authored by an “ordinary Tehrani.”

Dear friend, if you have any contacts within the American Administration, please send them this message on behalf of us, ordinary Iranians in Iran (whose interests and concerns are very different from those of the exiled Iranians in the United States and in Europe who do not yet understand the mentality here and who have been cut off from the Iranian society for too long). Tell your contacts in the Administration that their point of view regarding Iran is by far the best position that an American Government has ever taken. We appreciate this and thank the President.

During the last two or three decades not one American president had “understood” Iran. All of them got caught in the traps of the mollahs, despite themselves having to play the bad cop .. but this time the intelligent president has decided not to join in their game, bravo.

It is normal that he is criticized vividly by most of the Los Angeles Iranians (and by most Republicans): since a long time they have been asking for just one thing : that America attack Iran and change the regime so that they get their possessions and their former jobs and privileges back, without wanting to know what today’s young Iranian wants here and now. It makes me think of the Cubans in Florida … they don’t consider the interests of their country but only what is due to them.

[fedupinBushcountry]

26. This from Peter Daou

who worked for JK in '04 on his campaign and then for Clinton in her run. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/nedas-martyrdom-and-the-p_b_218787.html">Neda's Martyrdom and the Pitfalls of Obama's Chronic Pragmatism

Pragmatism? He is so wrong and off base on this.

[karynnj]

29. His article is so unfocused as welll as wrong

Wasn't he one of the few people who had been with Kerry to go to Clinton before Kerry opted not to run? From his inchoate attacks on Obama's not radical enough choices, it shows that were it not for "political pragmatism on his part, he should have worked for Kuchinich or the 2008 reincarnination of Edwards.

Here he says this:

"And on Iran, the issue of the moment, they are eschewing a full-throated approach and hoping for the best. Maybe it's the correct strategy, and maybe it's not. I certainly don't pretend to know, though I do know that if the Iranian regime prevails, which it likely will, Republicans will have a field day blaming Democrats for being too tepid in defense of a democratic uprising."

But then ends by saying:

"Neda reminds us that some things are worth sacrificing for, that the ills of the world are viscerally real, that what is needed most is moral clarity and the unbending will to right what is wrong, even if it isn't the most politically pragmatic thing to do."


Now, he may not know about the best policy in Iran, but he does know what the politically expedient thing here is and as he says in the earlier paragraph - it is what the Republicans are doing.

On Iran and other foreign policy issues, I am brought back to 3004. During the last few months of the campaign, both the Washington Post and the NYT wrote op-eds, where the Bush policy was described as idealistic and the Kerry policy as not being so. They bought the neo-con dream about "spreading democracy" before Bush used the words. They completely misunderstood Kerry's deeper idealism. Now, Obama is in a better position, because he has the platform, the eloquence and the time to allow Americans to hear and understand a significantly different foreign policy than ones we have had. Daou needs to read the Cairo speech and think of the insincerity of certain Republicans, who a few weeks ago discouraged any talk with any Iranians and who would have agreed to a "surgical" attack to take out places where weapons can be made in the future are now speaking of Neda on TV and in the Senate as their heroine.

On the other issues, Daou's view that we need Neda's level of commitment ignores that only when things pass a threshold of your circumstances becoming unbearable would people risk death to fight against them. In addition, a President has many ways to lead to try to accomplish his agenda - and many involve leading people to agree on a solution.

[TayTay]

30. When will we ever learn?

John F. Kennedy in 1960: " Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

This is a noble and unenforceable and dangerous philosophy. "Pay any price, bear any burden" is morally wrong. This led to the tragedy of Vietnam. It has led to the tragedy of Iraq. It is a utopian argument that is not grounded in the real world.

What exactly does Peter Daou want the US to do besides speak pretty words? What do we offer the good people of Iran that we can actually deliver. Iran has to determine it's own fate. We can pledge to help, but we have an unpleasant history of interference in that nation's internal affairs. I don't think we are the agents of change here. I think the Iranians are.

There is a long conversation that the US needs to have over it's moral obligations to the rest of the world. There is an obligation to look at an event like the Holocaust in Europe and Pol Pot in Cambodia and so forth and say, "never again." Yet, how do we get there without injecting more poison into a political system and causing more damage? We cannot inject freedom into a culture like it was some sort of inoculation for a disease.

Peter is dead wrong. The President is right, Sen. Kerry is right. We are having the wrong conversation once again.

(non sequitor: Oh, and does anyone else find this proof that God loves irony? A President universally celebrated for his mastery of words is being condemned for not being verbal and flowery enough.)

[karynnj]

31. That is an irony - and similar to the one I felt circa 2004 - 2007

when Kerry, who I think is as at least as eloquent as Obama, was said by supporters of others to be unable to reach people with his words.

The other irony is the sudden love for the Iranian people by the man who sang, "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran - a bombing that could have killed many Nedas. There is also an irony that he needs to redefine who they are are - rather than to honestly see this courageous movement for what it is - rather than assigning them our values.

[beachmom]

33. Peter Daou was astute at diagnosing problems with Dem party infrastructure & message

But he clearly should stay away from foreign policy, which he does not understand.

I have to admit, although we are discussing this here, the "American politics" angle of this Iran story is the least interesting least important aspect of the story. The story is the Iranian people.

[TayTay]

34. I agree.

And Daou risks falling into the very moral trap he seems to be condemning.

[beachmom]

32. The evolution of words continues: Obama to "condemn" violence

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/23/obama_will_condemn_iran_abuses

Obama will condemn Iran abuses

Tue, 06/23/2009 - 9:38am

President Barack Obama will condemn Iranian government use of violence against peaceful protesters and other human rights abuses at a 12:30pm news conference, sources in touch with the administration say. The president's planned news conference was moved from the Rose Garden to the James Brady briefing room.

Again, he is standing up for human rights and freedom, but NOT taking sides in the election dispute.

[beachmom]

37. More Congressional idiocy:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/congress-cuts-in.html

Yesterday, NIAC’s own Patrick Disney was quoted in CQ saying Congress would actually be undermining Mousavi’s cause if it passed the sanctions. “The perception would be ‘U.S. Congress imposes harsh new sanctions to destabilize the Iranian economy,” he said. What’s done is done, but it is so unfortunate that members of Congress don’t see the danger of using the situation in Iran as a political football. Such a shame.

Apparently, the House Appropriations committee passed something that would cut off loans to companies who are connnected in to the Iranian oil industry. Totally boneheaded. Already being used as propaganda in Iran. Sigh.

[beachmom]

38. Senate legislation (sigh):

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/25/senators-to-introduce-iran-legislation/

Three U.S. senators said Thursday they will introduce legislation funding a package of assistance to help get around the Tehran regime's information block.

"The Iranian government recognizes that Internet is a threat to its stranglehold over society and is trying to impose its repressive controls over it," Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said. "The legislation would authorize funds to ensure that Iranians have the hardware, software and other tools to evade the censorship and surveillance of the regime online."

McCain joined fellow Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Connecticut, and Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, at a news conference to announce the legislation, which they said is an effort to support the Iranian people.